Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

Republicans have managed to both make their seats safer, and ensure there are more of them, despite the fact that they lost the overall popular congressional vote.

Of members of congress who won their districts with a margin of 60% or more in 2012, 18 were Republicans, while 29 were Democrats. In the crucial safe-but-not-overwhelming zone, with victory margins between 15% and 30%, Republicans won 92 seats while Democrats won 42. The average margin of victory for Republicans was 28.6%; for Democrats, it was 35.7%.

So there you go. This is one big reason why Republicans in the House are likely to react to widespread anger over the shutdown by becoming more, rather than less, confrontational. The vote distributions in their districts would have to swing by 10% or more for any sizable number of them to lose their seats, and that's not very likely to happen.
(The Economist)

I didn't say it was LIMITED to them. I said it is FUNDAMENTAL TO THEIR POWER.
Nothing you said contradicted that.. so it is IRRELEVANT to my point.
Any time you cut funding it is not going to be "pleasant" to the ones being cut.. yet that is the fundamental aspect of the power of the purse.

You don't have to say it was limited. You already supported shutting down the WIC program - I was merely pointing out that there are serious consequences to shutting down these programs.

Here's another group: the widows of the military that just died - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...of-fallen?lite. Not only is there financial harm but the honor of the Government to pay this sacred debt is at stake. So you may describe that as 'not going to be pleasant' but these are the wives of men who have literally died for this country.

This is the power you laud and are praising and claiming to be proper, and legal. In honing your argument close to the law, you forget about honor, decency and the protection of the weak and the payment of debts, even to the family of those who have given their very own lives.

In other words you concede that it is irrelevant.
Nothing you have said here contradicts the fact that this stuff is a product of the inherent consequences of the power of the purse.
Your attempts are to cast them as "improper", and that point fails as long as the above is true.

Well, you tell the wives of dead soldiers that the payment that the government promised them is irrelevant. If you can do that with the straight face then I will concede the point. Until then, it is terrorism at its worse.

If the dems were trying to completely defund the military (IE 100%) with their power of the purse(when they get the house), I would ask that they be recalled... not because they are abusing their power or doing something illegal, but because they are doing something so stupid and foolish(Which I could support with facts and evidence and logical argumentation) that they deserve to be removed from office.

More procedural delays aren't getting kids fed. Besides, Democrats are not that suicidal.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

Originally Posted by Vandaler

I actually love the Tea Party and how it's wreaking havoc in the Republican Party. They are very real people with real views and with a little luck, they just might damage the Republican brand so bad, that they will not regain power for another generation... Republican's entered this crisis without a plan, without a leader, and without an exit strategy... it will be interesting to see how this devolves. Maybe Sarah Palin will post a way out of this mess from her Facebook page.

You know, unless you just love deficit spending and crony politics, there is no legitimate reason to hope either party is out of power for a generation. Two parties allows for a facade of checks and balances. You wanna know what happens when one party rules the roost. Vandaler meet California. California meet Vandaler. He thinks you're a great idea Mr. CA. How would you like to respond.

CA's response: Well, you know people just love it here. The sun. The beaches. Blue skies. Great weather. We are #1. As in, #1 in unemployment. Ooops. Did I just say that.. I mean we have 1/4 of the entire country's welfare population. That's gotta be a good thing, right? After all that means 75% of all the other folks on welfare live in one of the other 49 states. Not too shabby. At least my Democrat caretakers make sure it isn't too pricey. Wait, hold on, Mr V. The Gov Brown is whispering something to me. Oooh, right, he told me not to mention we are the #1 or #2 highest taxed state in the nation. It varies a little, but we always try to stay ultra-competitive. Darn, look at me. Its like I have no boundaries, telling you all my dirty little secrets. Speaking of boundaries, I really don't have any. Illegal aliens come here in droves. Hey, they are now eligible for their own real driver license. Add to that the free healthcare, education, and other forms of assistance and I don't know why an illegal alien would want to live anywhere else. Now, if I can afford to give all this stuff away to people who aren't even living in me legally, you're probably thinking the Democrats who have run this mefor over a decade have the budget well in hand, right? Well, not quite. It seems that that pesky Republican minority has really screwed this state up. They blocked all our grand schemes up until a couple years ago when we finally gerrymandered ourselves a super majority. Let me tell ya'. Even though they only made up about 1/3 of our legislature and held virtually no state-wide offices, its gonna take us a decade to recover from our own malfeasance, I mean the Republicans.

Yours truly,
California

P.S.
Please help me!

The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

On Republican gerrymandering:
Republicans have managed to both make their seats safer, and ensure there are more of them, despite the fact that they lost the overall popular congressional vote.

Of members of congress who won their districts with a margin of 60% or more in 2012, 18 were Republicans, while 29 were Democrats. In the crucial safe-but-not-overwhelming zone, with victory margins between 15% and 30%, Republicans won 92 seats while Democrats won 42. The average margin of victory for Republicans was 28.6%; for Democrats, it was 35.7%.

So there you go. This is one big reason why Republicans in the House are likely to react to widespread anger over the shutdown by becoming more, rather than less, confrontational. The vote distributions in their districts would have to swing by 10% or more for any sizable number of them to lose their seats, and that's not very likely to happen.
(The Economist)

On Polls:
Fox News Poll Finds Disapproval Of GOP Skyrocketing After They Shut Down Government: Even the Fox News poll has found disapproval of the Republican Party jumping to 59% in their latest poll.
On Seats:
GOP In Grave Danger Of Losing House In 2014, PPP Polls Show:... Republican incumbents are behind in 17 of the districts analyzed:...

I don’t see where that is connected to the Tea-Party…
You have not supported that “the gerrymandering of Republican seats have given rise to challengers in moderate-Republican districts.”

I do not challenge that gerrymandering occurs.. it occurs on both sides and is a serious problem in our nation. What I am challenging is your connection of the TP being minority and running the country.

Originally Posted by JJ

You don't have to say it was limited. You already supported shutting down the WIC program - I was merely pointing out that there are serious consequences to shutting down these programs.

Straw-man.. I did not say shut down the WIC program. I was specific about New borns and mother that could produce their own milk. WIC is a lot larger than that.

Originally Posted by JJ

This is the power you laud and are praising and claiming to be proper, and legal. In honing your argument close to the law, you forget about honor, decency and the protection of the weak and the payment of debts, even to the family of those who have given their very own lives.

Again, fallacious appeal to emotion.
That you and I don't like an effect doesn't make it Illegal.

Just concede that it is legal and a inherent part of using such power, and then we can start talking about prioritizing spending and actually paying for some of these things we agree on.

Originally Posted by JJ

Well, you tell the wives of dead soldiers that the payment that the government promised them is irrelevant. If you can do that with the straight face then I will concede the point. Until then, it is terrorism at its worse.

Fallacious appeal to emotion. Nothing about that changes or effects the point I made.

I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

I don’t see where that is connected to the Tea-Party…
You have not supported that “the gerrymandering of Republican seats have given rise to challengers in moderate-Republican districts.”

I do not challenge that gerrymandering occurs.. it occurs on both sides and is a serious problem in our nation. What I am challenging is your connection of the TP being minority and running the country.

The current budget brinkmanship is just the latest development in a well-financed, broad-based assault on the health law, Mr. Obama’s signature legislative initiative. Groups like Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks are all immersed in the fight, as is Club for Growth, a business-backed nonprofit organization. Some, like Generation Opportunity and Young Americans for Liberty, both aimed at young adults, are upstarts. Heritage Action is new, too, founded in 2010 to advance the policy prescriptions of its sister group, the Heritage Foundation.

Straw-man.. I did not say shut down the WIC program. I was specific about New borns and mother that could produce their own milk. WIC is a lot larger than that.

Seems as if you were denigrating the program as a whole. And it's more odd being so specific about a tiny portion of an entire national program. So your idea now is that every single program needs to be looked to a level that is likely a couple of orders of magnitude more work! How is that ever going to be done?

Again, fallacious appeal to emotion.
That you and I don't like an effect doesn't make it Illegal.

It's not just about legality. It is about a moral obligation to one's own people and honoring obligations. Not paying widows of men who have just died may not be illegal but it is highly damaging to everything we should be standing for.

Your constant appeal to committing heinous acts so long they're legal is quite disgraceful. It's like the paid vacation comment.

Just concede that it is legal and a inherent part of using such power, and then we can start talking about prioritizing spending and actually paying for some of these things we agree on.

I don't disagree it is legal. I disagree it it an inherent part of using such power. It is supposed to be used as a way to fine tune a law not to attempt to prevent it from being implement wholesale. And it is certainly not meant to be used to extort concessions from another political party.

Fallacious appeal to emotion. Nothing about that changes or effects the point I made.

To govern without understanding people a not governing. It is either animal husbandry or slavery.

I will take this as if this is an acceptable cost to get your way. Correct?

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

Originally Posted by JJ

It is coming out that this has been in planning for a couple of years, led by the Tea Party movement and funded by the Kochs:

That still doesn’t mean they are RUNNING the place. That just means they are persuading the majority. If we accept your objection as true, then no one would be allowed to persuade anyone ever. The majority party voted in the house. It isn’t a minority running the show. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by JJ

Seems as if you were denigrating the program as a whole. And it's more odd being so specific about a tiny portion of an entire national program. So your idea now is that every single program needs to be looked to a level that is likely a couple of orders of magnitude more work! How is that ever going to be done?

Diligently.

Originally Posted by JJ

It's not just about legality. It is about a moral obligation to one's own people and honoring obligations. Not paying widows of men who have just died may not be illegal but it is highly damaging to everything we should be standing for.

In a world where our gov’s promise have out paced income, that is a natural part of the process. Any cut is going to produce similar stories. That is why the objection fails and is a fallacious appeal to emotion.

Originally Posted by JJ

I don't disagree it is legal. I disagree it it an inherent part of using such power. It is supposed to be used as a way to fine tune a law not to attempt to prevent it from being implement wholesale. And it is certainly not meant to be used to extort concessions from another political party.

No it’s not. It is intended to cut programs we can’t afford.
If Washington voted to give every person 1million dollars, it would then fall to the House to refuse to fund it (as a whole even). It is to provide PRESSURE to change it on the level you are talking about OR ELSE not fund it at all.
Just like a veto is used by the pres.

[QUTOE=JJ] To govern without understanding people a not governing. It is either animal husbandry or slavery.

I will take this as if this is an acceptable cost to get your way. Correct? [/QUOTE]
I don’t see how this is a response to my point.

I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

That still doesn’t mean they are RUNNING the place. That just means they are persuading the majority. If we accept your objection as true, then no one would be allowed to persuade anyone ever. The majority party voted in the house. It isn’t a minority running the show. Deal with it.

I don't know if it's going to be productive to quibble over the word 'running the place' - it's who is calling the shots that matter. In this case it seems to be the Koch funded Tea Party. That's all I mean by minority.

I do agree that it is well within the Republican's right to self-distruct and I'm enjoying the show greatly.

Diligently.

So you are indeed talking about looking at every decision to pay every penny. Correct?

In a world where our gov’s promise have out paced income, that is a natural part of the process. Any cut is going to produce similar stories. That is why the objection fails and is a fallacious appeal to emotion.

Not at all. Political decisions are not always done on purely economic reasons. Political expediency and emotion are perfectly valid reasons. Your own party's faux outrage and grandstanding in front of memorials shows that.

But you have not yet rebutted the obligations to our fallen heroes' families. This is not an emotional appeal - it is to do with honoring an understanding with our troops that their death would result in a financial buffer for the families.

No it’s not. It is intended to cut programs we can’t afford.
If Washington voted to give every person 1million dollars, it would then fall to the House to refuse to fund it (as a whole even). It is to provide PRESSURE to change it on the level you are talking about OR ELSE not fund it at all.
Just like a veto is used by the pres.

We are not talking about scenarios that you just made up. We are talking about the programs that keep this country strong.

[QUTOE=JJ] To govern without understanding people a not governing. It is either animal husbandry or slavery.

I will take this as if this is an acceptable cost to get your way. Correct?

I don’t see how this is a response to my point.[/QUOTE]

You don't have a point other than that everything is being done legally. That's a baseline argument that you are falling back on because you have no other stronger one. Of course everyone should behave according the the law!

If that's your baseline then you should respect that those programs are out there legally too and should all be funded.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

Originally Posted by Someguy

At some point, we have to handle these underlining causes (massive government spending, massive entitlement programs, etc) and bring our house in order.

What I find troubling, is that the current proposal on the table, if Republican's accepts it, is to fund the Gov at sequestration level. Do you know what this means? Democrats already agree to fund the Gov at a rate that is causing the deficit to now decline at a rate that as not been seen in the past 60 years!

The issue at hand really, is that Republican's have set their sight so high coming in to this situation, that they do not recognize a fine deal when they see it.

A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
- Wayne Gretzky

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

Originally Posted by JJ

I don't know if it's going to be productive to quibble over the word 'running the place' - it's who is calling the shots that matter. In this case it seems to be the Koch funded Tea Party. That's all I mean by minority.

I do agree that it is well within the Republican's right to self-distruct and I'm enjoying the show greatly.

As an objection, it is simply invalid. .. so no, not going to be productive.
Your basically just moving goal posts. You start off objecting to the minority party holding the majority hostage (implying the house is subject to the senate and pres because they are republicans and dems won big last election). Then you get corrected about the house being a majority republicans, you change it to be about the tea party. You get corrected about the tea party influencing, and appeal to election financing…

Now it is so far removed from your original objection, it is irrelevant. Gerrymandering and campaign finance is a problem in politics all together, not simply the republican party. Thus, they are insufficient objections to the power the house wields.

Originally Posted by JJ

So you are indeed talking about looking at every decision to pay every penny. Correct?

Read, everything is on the table.

Originally Posted by JJ

Not at all. Political decisions are not always done on purely economic reasons. Political expediency and emotion are perfectly valid reasons. Your own party's faux outrage and grandstanding in front of memorials shows that.

But you have not yet rebutted the obligations to our fallen heroes' families. This is not an emotional appeal - it is to do with honoring an understanding with our troops that their death would result in a financial buffer for the families.

What can be said.. running out of money is a bitch. I ran out of money once… it was a bitch then too.

Your right political decisions are not done on purely economic reasons, but REALITY does operate on economic reasons. It doesn’t matter WHAT the program is, or how much we love it, or how many old ladies it helps. When we are out of money, then it doesn’t matter. The reality is that the money doesn’t exist for some of these programs. And while we love many of them, we are simply going to need to prioritize. I would agree that paying the family of fallen vets should be placed above giving women capable of producing milk… milk.

It seems however, that you are more interested in trying to demonize me personally, than to address reality. Not so different than those in Washington, which is exactly what makes extreme measures necessary. With the partisan ship as it is, the world has to be in peril, and there has to be some threat that the people will blame your particular party, before any compromise is done. .. it’s sad.

Originally Posted by JJ

We are not talking about scenarios that you just made up. We are talking about the programs that keep this country strong.

No we are not, it is simply a variation of giving everyone a million dollars.

Originally Posted by JJ

You don't have a point other than that everything is being done legally

No, you were complaining about black-mail/execution of old grandma’s ..whatever you wanted to call it, and acting as though it was some evil sin for the House to “hold hostage/ransom/kill old ladies.. etc”.
I countered with the observation that, that is all INHERENT to the normal operations of the power of the purse. That when the house does anything to hold up the gov based on spending, that it will inherently fall under your objection.

Thus your objection is invalid, because it is the PURPOSE of the house to do exactly that when the gov refuses to balance a budget, or passes something that paying for poses a serious problem.

So.. you haven’t countered that, and instead have simply repeated your original appeal.

I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

Originally Posted by JimJones8934

I don't know if it's going to be productive to quibble over the word 'running the place' - it's who is calling the shots that matter. In this case it seems to be the Koch funded Tea Party. That's all I mean by minority.

The bigger question is: Why does it matter, legally speaking, if the Tea Party is "Running things or not"?

Originally Posted by JimJones8934

I do agree that it is well within the Republican's right to self-distruct and I'm enjoying the show greatly.

That is a problem, sometimes, with a group that thinks for itself and doesn't blindly follow one person like they are a god.

Originally Posted by JimJones8934

So you are indeed talking about looking at every decision to pay every penny. Correct?

The government is supposed to be good stewards of our money. With that roles comes the great responsibility of making sure that every penny of our money (being that the government has no money) is properly and most efficiently spent.

Originally Posted by JimJones8934

Not at all. Political decisions are not always done on purely economic reasons.

Much to economist bane this is correct. Many questions on fiscal spending come down to a decision between efficiency and equity. Economist disagree on which is more valid given the scenario. I'm more of a efficiency guy. Liberals pretend to be more about equity....odd considering how much some of them opposed the Civil Rights act.

Originally Posted by JimJones8934

Political expediency and emotion are perfectly valid reasons.

I rarely ever see any situation in which political expediency and decisions based purely on emotion generate the greatest results for either efficiency or equity. Can you provide any evidence to support your claim here?

Originally Posted by JimJones8934

But you have not yet rebutted the obligations to our fallen heroes' families. This is not an emotional appeal - it is to do with honoring an understanding with our troops that their death would result in a financial buffer for the families.

It absolutely is an emotional appeal. I would note that the life insurance policies that individual military have are not being blocked from being paid during this time. It is amazing what just a LITTLE bit of research does for an argument:

Originally Posted by USDept.Vets

Note: During the Federal Government shutdown, we will continue to pay death and traumatic injury benefits and answer calls. This includes SGLI and TSGLI benefits for active duty, reserve, and guard members and Veterans’ Group Life Insurance. -

It is the other benefits that they are being blocked by Obama and Reid. I find that the great majority of Liberal arguments boil down to emotional appeals that lack fact, reasoning, or logic.

Originally Posted by JimJones8934

We are not talking about scenarios that you just made up. We are talking about the programs that keep this country strong.

No, you are talking about programs that are responsible for bankrupting this country. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare among others, that have created, by some accounts over 144 TRILLION dollars in unfunded liabilities for this country. What keeps America strong is not the government or their irresponsible programs, it is the middle and upper classes working hard...the same class you would absolutely love to tax into poverty out of jealousy.

Originally Posted by JimJones8934

You don't have a point other than that everything is being done legally. That's a baseline argument that you are falling back on because you have no other stronger one.

There is no stronger argument in the context of this debate.

Originally Posted by JimJones8934

Of course everyone should behave according the the law!

Tell your boy Obama that.

Originally Posted by JimJones8934

If that's your baseline then you should respect that those programs are out there legally too and should all be funded.

Existing legally =/= should all be funded. This is the poorest argument I have seen yet. Just because a program currently exists legally, does not mean that they government has an obligation to fund it. It we don't want the program anymore or can't afford it, or for any reason at all decide that we don't want to fund it anymore, then we don't have to.

What I find troubling, is that the current proposal on the table, if Republican's accepts it, is to fund the Gov at sequestration level. Do you know what this means? Democrats already agree to fund the Gov at a rate that is causing the deficit to now decline at a rate that as not been seen in the past 60 years!

Right. That was for the previous debt ceiling increase. Obama is asking for yet another increase....what is this...the 5th one? In order to get this one, we are going to need more concessions in order to bring this financial chaos in order.

Its really perfectly logical:

Company A: *Goes to bank to get a loan to pay its bills* May I have a loan?
Bank: "Sure, *reviews financial records* looks like you are having some financial problems, so for this loan we require A,B, and C in order to loan you the money
Company A: *Provides A,B, and C and secures the loan*
*1 year later*
Company A: *Returns to same bank after using all of the loan money* May I have another loan?
Bank: *Notices that the company is still in financial chaos and has blown through all of the money it previously loaned it* Well, we will loan you more money, but considering how you blown through all of the previous loan and haven't made enough changes to your financial situation to generate a profit, we are going to need these concessions: A,B, and C again, but also D,E,and F"

Originally Posted by Vandaler

The issue at hand really, is that Republican's have set their sight so high coming in to this situation, that they do not recognize a fine deal when they see it.

What deal? The Republicans got the sequester compromise when Obama asked for the last debt limit increase. Obama got something, Republicans got something. (The one act of compromise that I have seen Obama do. Then he fought it like hell when it came time for him to pay up) Now that the previous agreements have both been paid, Obama is asking for another debt limit increase....so, he is going to have to compromise and give something else up. That's the way the world works. People face trade offs.

I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

As an objection, it is simply invalid. .. so no, not going to be productive.
Your basically just moving goal posts. You start off objecting to the minority party holding the majority hostage (implying the house is subject to the senate and pres because they are republicans and dems won big last election). Then you get corrected about the house being a majority republicans, you change it to be about the tea party. You get corrected about the tea party influencing, and appeal to election financing…

Now it is so far removed from your original objection, it is irrelevant. Gerrymandering and campaign finance is a problem in politics all together, not simply the republican party. Thus, they are insufficient objections to the power the house wields.

No, I started off objecting to a minority part of government (not completely the house but also parts of the Senate), which is only one branch of government, who didn't have the popular vote, and largely brought about via gerrymandering (i.e. even less of a minority), and financing via the Kochs. It's what I meant when I said all the way back in #90:
There are three points we are discussing (and as a reminder):

1. Whether extortion is the way to do things; that a minority group should be allowed to shutdown government just because they don't like a law that they have repeatedly fail to stall.

So whether it's done by a minority group or not is sort of irrelevant since the main point is about the extortion. It's made worse that it's a radical minority group seeming to lead things.

2. That this is "a bad thing" (it's a bad way to conduct business in ODN, I think you agree there, but do you further agree it is bad form in Government).3. Whether the power of the purse argument is relevant, given that there are enough votes to pass a clean bill.

JJ:So you are indeed talking about looking at every decision to pay every penny. Correct?
Read, everything is on the table.

Then in that case, I think this is a total waste of time, as I've been maintaining all along. It would cost millions to reassess every sub-program within every program in every State.

What can be said.. running out of money is a bitch. I ran out of money once… it was a bitch then too.

We haven't run of money - we get more money by selling bonds.

Your right political decisions are not done on purely economic reasons, but REALITY does operate on economic reasons. It doesn’t matter WHAT the program is, or how much we love it, or how many old ladies it helps. When we are out of money, then it doesn’t matter. The reality is that the money doesn’t exist for some of these programs. And while we love many of them, we are simply going to need to prioritize. I would agree that paying the family of fallen vets should be placed above giving women capable of producing milk… milk.

And I would raise taxes to cover the short fall.

It seems however, that you are more interested in trying to demonize me personally, than to address reality. Not so different than those in Washington, which is exactly what makes extreme measures necessary.

Not really, it's only demonizing if you feel that emotion has to do with any decision making here; or rather empathy for the weaker, the needier, and those who husbands have sacrificed their lives. If you don't, and you don't believe emotions/empathy have anything to do with governing then that's just a different approach from government. It largely explains why you (Republicans) are against ObamaCare & SNAP & other 'entitlement' programs. It shouldn't be a new thing that Republicans are portrayed as the party of not caring.

With the partisan ship as it is, the world has to be in peril, and there has to be some threat that the people will blame your particular party, before any compromise is done. .. it’s sad.

Wait a second, no-one is compromising anything more here. Republicans either have to give up on their demands and be satisfied with what they had already got, and what the Democrats conceded, sequester-level spending. What's sad is that Republicans would rather see the world end than poor people get insurance. Think about that for a minute. It's not partisanship Obama is defending, it is the democratic process.

No we are not, it is simply a variation of giving everyone a million dollars.

A variation that makes no sense.

JJ:You don't have a point other than that everything is being done legally
No, you were complaining about black-mail/execution of old grandma’s ..whatever you wanted to call it, and acting as though it was some evil sin for the House to “hold hostage/ransom/kill old ladies.. etc”.
I countered with the observation that, that is all INHERENT to the normal operations of the power of the purse. That when the house does anything to hold up the gov based on spending, that it will inherently fall under your objection.

Exactly, the only thing you have to counter is that you just have process, rules and regulations to fall back upon. Not actual substantive reasons why it needs to be done that way but that you can. Taking your ball away and not playing, until the other side concedes to automatically lose; or destroying the ball if they don't, is not how things are done.

Thus your objection is invalid, because it is the PURPOSE of the house to do exactly that when the gov refuses to balance a budget, or passes something that paying for poses a serious problem.

So.. you haven’t countered that, and instead have simply repeated your original appeal.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

The bigger question is: Why does it matter, legally speaking, if the Tea Party is "Running things or not"?

Legally speaking, it doesn't matter. No one is claiming that anything illegal has yet been done though the debt ceiling is getting dangerously close to being unconstitutional.

That is a problem, sometimes, with a group that thinks for itself and doesn't blindly follow one person like they are a god.

I suppose you realize the recent reports that Cruz's dad thinks that he's actually been touched by God? Check out this hilarious if it weren't actually scary interview with his father:

When he was four I used to read Bible stories to him all the time. And I would declare and proclaim the word of God over him. And I would just say, ‘You know Ted, you have been gifted above any man that I know and God has destined you for greatness’. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....aBbQTdbE.dpuf

So given that Christians tend to follow religious things: is it better to have someone that probably has delusions of being touched by God, Cruz; or someone that doesn't have such delusions, Obama.

JJ:So you are indeed talking about looking at every decision to pay every penny. Correct?

The government is supposed to be good stewards of our money. With that roles comes the great responsibility of making sure that every penny of our money (being that the government has no money) is properly and most efficiently spent.

And you have proof that this is not happening? Also, this point is to establish that this it is a waste of time to go through all the decisions for the thousands of programs with no real goal other than to remove milk from babies whose mothers can already produce milk (likely a few dozen people).

JJ:Not at all. Political decisions are not always done on purely economic reasons.
Much to economist bane this is correct. Many questions on fiscal spending come down to a decision between efficiency and equity. Economist disagree on which is more valid given the scenario. I'm more of a efficiency guy. Liberals pretend to be more about equity....odd considering how much some of them opposed the Civil Rights act. (ignored - stop flamebaiting)

Well, if economists were good politicians then they'd be doing politics. But they're not - they're, supposedly, good at economics: one input out of many.

I rarely ever see any situation in which political expediency and decisions based purely on emotion generate the greatest results for either efficiency or equity. Can you provide any evidence to support your claim here?

That's assuming that maximizing efficiency or equity is a goal in the first place. In terms of paying widows of soldiers, I see it as an obligation.

It absolutely is an emotional appeal. I would note that the life insurance policies that individual military have are not being blocked from being paid during this time. It is amazing what just a LITTLE bit of research does for an argument:

Who's talking about life insurance! This is a government program that is separate from that. Strawman much?

It is the other benefits that they are being blocked by Obama and Reid. I find that the great majority of Liberal arguments boil down to emotional appeals that lack fact, reasoning, or logic.

Much like this post.

No, you are talking about programs that are responsible for bankrupting this country. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare among others, that have created, by some accounts over 144 TRILLION dollars in unfunded liabilities for this country. What keeps America strong is not the government or their irresponsible programs, it is the middle and upper classes working hard...the same class you would absolutely love to tax into poverty out of jealousy.

Prove that we are bankrupt.

JJ:You don't have a point other than that everything is being done legally. That's a baseline argument that you are falling back on because you have no other stronger one.
There is no stronger argument in the context of this debate.

Then you agree with me: there is nothing here other than saying the obvious - that rules are being adhered to.

Existing legally =/= should all be funded. This is the poorest argument I have seen yet. Just because a program currently exists legally, does not mean that they government has an obligation to fund it. It we don't want the program anymore or can't afford it, or for any reason at all decide that we don't want to fund it anymore, then we don't have to.

Please support or retract your position here.

You seem to be missing the point. You are actually agreeing with me! Yes, saying that something is legal is not a good reason to do anything: shutting down the government, defaulting on America's debts (actually this is illegal) or funding programs. I was saying that if the position is that nothing illegal is being done (what you are claiming that there is no stronger argument when it suits you) then it must be OK; then that must correspondingly also apply to the programs. Yet you contradict yourself by saying it's the poorest argument.

When you figure out what your position is then please forward it but it seems that you're more interested in scoring points than really debating here.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

Originally Posted by JJ

No, I started off objecting to a minority part of government (not completely the house but also parts of the Senate), which is only one branch of government, who didn't have the popular vote, and largely brought about via gerrymandering (i.e. even less of a minority), and financing via the Kochs. It's what I meant when I said all the way back in #90:

There are three points we are discussing (and as a reminder):
1. Whether extortion is the way to do things; that a minority group should be allowed to shutdown government just because they don't like a law that they have repeatedly fail to stall.

So whether it's done by a minority group or not is sort of irrelevant since the main point is about the extortion. It's made worse that it's a radical minority group seeming to lead things.

If it is irrelevant… then why mention it except to distract from the issue at hand?
I’ll take it as a rant that I mistakenly treated as an actual objection.

Originally Posted by JJ

I don't think this shutdown is about balancing the budget. In fact:

Please prove that the shutdown is about balancing the budget.

Your challenge does not accurately reflect what I said, and is thus invalid.

I appreciate your efforts in this thread, but I do not believe that I can explain them to you any better. Despite my best efforts You have repeatedly failed to accurately reflect my position, both in your fallacious and invalid challenges, and in the many responses based on straw-men.
Thus I will respectfully decline to address your contributions to this thread further.

Threads don't live forever

I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

If it is irrelevant… then why mention it except to distract from the issue at hand?
I’ll take it as a rant that I mistakenly treated as an actual objection.

Your challenge does not accurately reflect what I said, and is thus invalid.

I appreciate your efforts in this thread, but I do not believe that I can explain them to you any better. Despite my best efforts You have repeatedly failed to accurately reflect my position, both in your fallacious and invalid challenges, and in the many responses based on straw-men.
Thus I will respectfully decline to address your contributions to this thread further.

Threads don't live forever

I'm OK with that. I never intended to discuss what you wanted anyway given that you kept tying it to a blackmail threat; I only mention this to point out that I achieved my goal, hopefully openly and transparently. This is not one of your better threads but I do appreciate your rewording of the OP earlier.

I also have to note that this you have been a little offensive here. Even more so, perhaps, due to personal friends and family affected directly by this shutdown. I hope we can explore upon this lack of empathy in general from your side of the aisle in future debates.

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan:
“..he [Obama] gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies, religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness …. that is I believe the work of God.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan

"A beam of morning light shown through the stained-glass windows and illuminated the president-elect's face. Several of the clergy and choir on the altar who also saw it marveled afterward about the presence of the Divine." In The Promise: President Obama, Year One by Jonathan Alterhttp://www.amazon.com/The-Promise-Pr.../dp/1439101191

“I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let’s say, blessed and highly favored. That’s not routine. There’s something else going on. I think that Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered. . . . I know that that was God’s plan.”– Bill Rush http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us...ted=print&_r=0

Cruz's father's view of his Senator son's spiritual journey versus Obama the Savior .... and you talk about "the probability of delusions?

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan:
“..he [Obama] gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies, religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness …. that is I believe the work of God.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan

"A beam of morning light shown through the stained-glass windows and illuminated the president-elect's face. Several of the clergy and choir on the altar who also saw it marveled afterward about the presence of the Divine." In The Promise: President Obama, Year One by Jonathan Alterhttp://www.amazon.com/The-Promise-Pr.../dp/1439101191

“I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let’s say, blessed and highly favored. That’s not routine. There’s something else going on. I think that Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered. . . . I know that that was God’s plan.”– Bill Rush http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us...ted=print&_r=0

Cruz's father's view of his Senator son's spiritual journey versus Obama the Savior .... and you talk about "the probability of delusions?

Yes, a life time of brain washing compared to some journalistic / artistic license is very different. The former is describing the person, the latter the supporters of the person! That's the point.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

So you have purposely been trolling my thread and drawing it off topic because you didn't want to discuss it?

Originally Posted by JJ

I also have to note that this you have been a little offensive here. Even more so, perhaps, due to personal friends and family affected directly by this shutdown. I hope we can explore upon this lack of empathy in general from your side of the aisle in future debates.

There is no lack of empathy, there was only a repeated fallacious appeal to emotion.

I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

edit: Once you have reviewed the below, please support or retract that I was trolling.
edit2: Adding the specific questions from your OP and your modified OP that I was answering.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

So you have purposely been trolling my thread and drawing it off topic because you didn't want to discuss it?

Of course not. I was clear about why this thread's only question was should this discussion of program review happen, and that the answer is no.

Your initial OP "should each non-essential worker/department be forced to justify it's existence before being brought back?" forwarded the idea that it should be tied to the shutdown and we know how implausible and impossible that was because you admitted that it would take longer than the shutdown to complete. Thus making the scenario moot and the answer 'no'. Even you'd have to agree it was a no.

Then you still tied the second rendering to the current extortion attempt "Should the U.S. Gov and it's citizens have a conversation re-evaluating the jobs and spending of the departments which were designated "non-essential" by the gov shut down" and I was still answering 'no' because of that reason. We were still debating on whether my position was valid (is it blackmail, is it really such a bad thing) when you gave up.

I have been consistent in saying that no reviews should happen whilst under threat. And in your last post, suggesting that the WIC program should be looked at with a fine tooth comb, when writ large, it wasn't even realistic (which was a more practical objection).

So there's no trolling. I was only answering the question whether we should do this, not how nor to dive in particulars. The only reason why I did was to show what a poor idea it was to begin with.

The only reason why I brought up this issue in the first place was to remind you that this is what we had been discussing all along. I have not deviated one iota towards having a discussion about this sort of review.

Your accusation that I was not playing your game and seeing the scenario your way, even though it is an entirely valid and legal interpretation, needed addressing. That's all I was doing - clarifying my position, which I have to also remind you, that I have won.

There is no lack of empathy, there was only a repeated fallacious appeal to emotion.

It doesn't matter if it's fallacious - humans are emotional beings and make decisions for all sorts of reasons. When some of your side are talking about End Times , you should look inwards regarding poor reasoning.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

Originally Posted by Vandaler

What I find troubling, is that the current proposal on the table, if Republican's accepts it, is to fund the Gov at sequestration level. Do you know what this means? Democrats already agree to fund the Gov at a rate that is causing the deficit to now decline at a rate that as not been seen in the past 60 years!

The issue at hand really, is that Republican's have set their sight so high coming in to this situation, that they do not recognize a fine deal when they see it.

So, if I decide I am going to pay you $5 an hour for really hard work, you'd be cool with it so long as I promised you a 20% raise for the next 3 years, right? I mean, your salary would increase by an astronomical amount each and every year. You'd totally accept it, based on your premise above. The fact is that the budget, despite being at sequestration levels is still miles above when it was operating under the previous Democrat administration. The decline just illustrates how incredibly high our current spending is and how Obama and the Dems were absolutely drunk on their own power. We still have a structural deficit and long-term budget problems. This is hardly debatable. Republicans, while they are the minority are fighting to fix these. Now, should they become the majority I have little doubt that the roles will reverse. Because like any good whore, they aren't going to turn a willing John away. The Democrats, right now, have so many cocks in their mouths, they can barely make a coherent sentence.

The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

I did, the day I realized that different people having epiphanies for different gods :-)

Public opinion is powerful, sir, not to mention Obama’s own statement to his supporter’s epiphanies about him.

Obama seems pretty level headed - I doubt that he thinks he's touched by God. Besides, as we witness Cruz's slow motion self-destruction, so does the truth of his beliefs of messiah-dom. Totally awesome.